G. Sundarasan
Vs. Union of India & Anr [1995] INSC 308
(12 July 1995)

The
petitioner was admittedly appointed in the quota of Scheduled Castes in the
Income-tax Department and ultimately he rose to the status as Income Tax
Inspector. Three years prior to retirement, he was called upon to prove that he
is scheduled caste and departmental enquiry was held. He was given opportunity
and it was found, relying upon the entries in service book, S.S.L.C. Register
and other documentary evidence, that he is not a member of the scheduled caste
and as such he is not eligible to enjoy the status as a scheduled caste in the
Government service. On that premise, they imposed, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA
Rules), punishment of forfeiting his pension. Calling in question that order
dated December 9,1987, the petitioner filed an O.A. in
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the evidence on
record, confirmed the finding of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner
had wrongfully gained appointment against the post reserved for Scheduled
Castes, and imposition of penalty of forfeiture of pension was legal.

We
have gone through the reasoning of the Tribunal. We find that the same are
perfectly justified. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Srinivasan, that a certificate was issued in 1956 by the
competent authority stating that the petitioner belonged to the community recognised
as a scheduled castes and petitioner's grandfather belonged to Thotti Naicken
community and he continued in office for the period of 30 years. At this
belated stage, it cannot held that he is not a scheduled caste and cannot be
called upon to prove it once over.

We
cannot appreciate this stand taken by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner
to prove that he belongs to the scheduled caste specified in the Presidential
Notification in relation to the State to which he belongs and was born. In
S.S.L.C. register, the petitioner did not claim his status as a scheduled
caste. On the other hand, his father's name was mentioned as Ganga Naidu and he
claimed to be Hindu. In those circumstances the Certificate obtained from the
Revenue Authorities in the year 1956 is obviously a false certificate.

Under
these circumstances the penalty of forfeiture of pension cannot be said to be
unwarranted. The petition is accordingly dismissed.